In January, we noted the work of biophysicist Kellar Autumn on an improved understanding of how gecko feet could exhibit such incredible adhesive power, yet leave no residue and even clean themselves during use. Gecko feet have complex microstructures known as setae and spatulae (tiny hairs and the fringes splitting off from them) that make use of Van der Waals force to allow geckos to stick to just about anything. Autumn's ultimate goal is to devise an artificial analogue to gecko adhesion, in order to make (in his words) not just the glue of the future, but the screw of the future: a dry, ultra-strong yet readily detached as needed, residue-free adhesive that works in vacuum, underwater, and on any surface.

But Autumn isn't the only one working on that goal.

On Friday, a research team led by University of Akron polymer scientist Dr. Ali Dhinojwala announced the development of artificial setae and spatulae made of multi-wall carbon nanotubes. What's more, the geckomimetic tubes demonstrate an adhesive force substantially more powerful than gecko feet.

...we have successfully demonstrated that structures found in gecko feet can be fabricated on polymer surfaces by using multiwalled carbon nanotubes. These structures have remarkable adhesion forces at the nanometer level, 200 times higher than that of a gecko foot-hair, and offer excellent potential as dry adhesives for microelectronics and space applications. The polymer used is a glassy PMMA [poly(methyl methacrylite), aka Lucite] but this approach can be applied to elastomeric polymers with different moduli and flexibility. This will provide the flexibility to deform at many different length scales compared to that of gecko foot-hair. We are currently extending our procedure to optimize the nanotube structures, to obtain macroscopic contact areas with high adhesion and different polymer matrices.

As the summary suggests, while they've managed to assemble the artificial gecko hair at the nanoscale, they have yet to make the nanotube setae work at a usable size.

If this seems like just another nanotube story, think for a moment about the implications when this material moves from the research bench to store shelves. These would be adhesive devices -- bandages, "nails," fasteners, seals -- that could withstand hundreds or even thousands of pounds of pressure, but be removed easily with an appropriate twist. And when removed, there's nothing sticky left behind, and the adhesive device could be used again with precisely the same strength. Imagine being able to design something where each component could be adjusted as easily as a sticky note is moved on a sheet of paper -- and yet, in use, the components would hold together tighter than if they were bolted in place. This would be the ultimate utility for "design for disassembly," an enabler for a "cradle-to-"cradle" world.

As this research continues to accelerate, we may soon find ourselves in a world held together by artificial gecko feet.

While this is indeed a facinating development in biomimicry, it should be remembered that carbon nanotubes have been found to cause lung cancer in lab rats. The last thing we need is yet another material that could possibly pose a cancer risk to humans. Perhaps a more innocuous substance could be substituted.

Posted by: Justin Minich on 15 Aug 05

As I recall the research, they were single-wall nanotubes, under conditions that the experimenters note are not analogous to natural exposure, that show in some experiments to have deleterious effects. These are multi-wall nanotubes, attached to polymers (not free-floating).

Posted by: Jamais Cascio on 15 Aug 05

I can see robot window washers climbing walls some day as rescue robots climb up burning buildings and grab people inside taking em to safety...

Posted by: wintermane on 15 Aug 05

or a whole new kind of rock-climbing.

Posted by: lawrence on 16 Aug 05

to reiterate concerns raised by #1 i remember reading that some buckyballs dropped into an aquarium (laboratory setting of course) ended up being fatally toxic to the fish.

I too am excited by yet another verse in the "oh, carbon nanotube, what can you not do" ode, but similar odes have been sung in the past, to technologies destructive and abandoned.

I too would love to reap some joy from yet hypothetical marketized C60 nanotube-based applications, but what kind of questions should we be asking, and answering, now, to make sure we don't just wind up with the next massively deployed DDT/MTBE/PCB/Asbestos?

Maybe the first step is make sure that, from a regulatory standpoint, the burden of proof rests with potential marketers of C60-based materials to show that they will be biologically safe, rather than not non-safe, if you will...